Pages

Saturday, July 15, 2017

I’ve been studying the book of Romans with some friends,
which has brought to mind the word “justify” and its various definitions. Theologically,
the word means to be declared righteous before God. The mnemonic device I
learned growing up was that being justified made it “just as if I” never sinned.
I remember once looking at the keyboard on a digital typewriter (in
pre-computer days) and seeing the “right justify” key, which would line up the
text with the margin of the page. It struck me that what Jesus did for me was
similar. My own righteousness couldn’t reach God’s standard, like unjustified
text couldn’t reach the margin. I realized that Jesus was my “justify” key and that
he could take what I offered him and fill in the gaps, so to speak, to make it
line up with the standard of holiness I could never reach on my own. It’s not a
perfect analogy, but it helped me appreciate being justified.

Ironically, the common usage of the word “justify” is almost
the opposite of the theological one. Theologically speaking, justification
starts with the truth that no one is fully righteous. In everyday usage,
however, being justified involves a person being unjustly accused or doubted,
then being shown to be in the right.

I find I need both kinds of justification. I’m certainly a
sinner in need of great grace. I also find, however, that in specific
situations, I long for someone to step in and defend me. In my last post, I
asked God to vindicate me, which is a similar concept. Someone asked what I meant
and I had trouble articulating it well. This is my attempt at a fuller answer.

I've learned that I feel beaten down, not only by things
that people say directly to me, but things that people say about others with whom
I identify. I suspect that we all have this tendency to some extent, but maybe
some of us are more sensitive to it than others. Take, for example, what people
say about other widows. Recently, within the span of a few days, I
heard two different people make offhanded comments about widows they knew. The
first commented that one seemed to be having a hard time. (Note to self – don’t
share with anyone when you’re grieving). The second person commented that she was
afraid another widow was too stoic and not allowing herself to mourn. (Note to
self – make sure to share with everyone when you’re grieving.)

A few days after I heard those comments I ran across a blog post
by a widow defending a widower who had recently announced his engagement. (Don’t
read it if it will bother you that the post contains both a Bible verse and the
phrase “dear ignorant, judgmental a**holes.”)
The writer’s palpable anger, which was echoed in hundreds and hundreds
of comments, reinforced the truth that when you attack one of us in this
widowhood club, it feels like an attack on all of us.

The chronic illness club is another one I find myself a
member of, and negative judgments about people who are ill pour down like rain.
The list of accusations feels almost endless: people have made themselves sick,
they remain sick because they are afraid or don’t really want to get well, they
use their illnesses to manipulate people, they exaggerate their symptoms, they
aren’t trying hard enough to heal, they aren’t smart enough to know the right
treatments, and on and on it goes. In the Christian world other messages get
piled on: they aren’t praying enough, they don’t have enough faith, they’re being
punished for sin, they’ve let Satan gain a foothold in their life. There are
also accusations that are specific to given conditions. People with chemical
sensitivities are often freely ridiculed and maligned for things like wearing
masks to protect themselves or asking for accommodations. Yesterday I read an
article that used the word “tyrants” when referring to us.

I feel very grateful to live in the digital age, when information
and connection is so easy to access. There’s some information, however, that I’m
not sure I want to know. Blog and social media posts, along with their associated
comments, pull back the curtain of denial and paint a stark and depressing
picture of how judgmental and accusatory we all tend to be. I’m not saying
anything new when I note how easy it is to type things online we would never
say to someone’s face or in the physical presence of bystanders who might
be sensitive to the message. I read things every day that make me sad and
angry, and I don’t know what to do with those emotions. Sometimes people do say
accusatory things directly to me, which is painful, but at least gives me the
option of response. But what do I do with the anger I feel at the accusations
of countless unnamed fellow humans who all seem to have an opinion about
widows, women, those with low incomes, Christians, people over 50 and the
chronically ill?

It’s easy to say that it doesn’t matter what other people
think. There’s certainly some truth in that. At the end of the day, only God’s
opinion really counts. But caring what people think also serves a certain
purpose in society, helping people understand norms and promoting cohesion. It’s
a natural human behavior. Biblical writers, especially psalmists, asked for
vindication or justification frequently. Here are a few examples, taken from a
variety of translations:

I believe that my anger is justified (there’s that word
again), but it doesn’t feel especially helpful. As I work through this issue
and try to process my feelings, I’ve found solace not only in realizing that
Biblical writers shared the same desire to be defended from unfair judgments,
but that God promises to do just that. This is my hope:

Isaiah
50:7-9a – Because the Sovereign Lord helps
me, I will not be disgraced. Therefore, I have set my face like a stone, determined
to do his will. And I know that I will not be put to shame. He who gives me
justice is near. Who will dare to bring charges against me now? Where are my
accusers? Let them appear! See, the Sovereign Lord is on my
side! Who will declare me guilty?

Thursday, May 4, 2017

Some blog posts are definitely more fun to write than others are. This one isn't fun at all. I find, however, that I can't keep ignoring a news story that someone recently posted to Facebook. I've tried, but it won't leave my brain. It's a very sad story. Something heartbreaking happened to a family and a 12 year old girl. What happened to her isn't new, however, but has happened before to other young people. In fact, I've written about it. In 2012 I wrote a post I called "Death by Deodorant" about two boys who died ten years apart, both from the toxicity of deodorant fumes. I wrote, "What improved between 1998, when the 16-year-old died and 2008, when the 12-year-old met the same fate? Did the products get safer or did society become more aware of the dangers? It doesn’t appear so. How about 2018? Will things be different then?"We haven't reached 2018, but the answer to whether things are different in 2017 is apparently "no." A news story from March reports on the sudden death of 12-year-old Paige Daughtry. A pathologist found that she died from the inhalation of chemicals found in the deodorant she had been using. He stated, "There was no natural disease that has contributed to her death. There was no evidence of heavy use and no direct evidence that there was chronic use." In other words, it appears that she was a healthy girl who died from using a common product for its intended purpose.It should be noted that the deodorant deaths took place in Europe, where spray formulations are more common than they are in the United States. However, "body sprays" are very common in the United States, and the popularity of spray deodorants is rising. The propellants implicated in Paige's death (butane and isobutane) are the same ones found in Axe and other body sprays.There are a number of issues raised by these stories, but if nothing else, surely they serve as a stark reminder that the great majority of personal care products in use have never been tested for safety. We can't trust that simply because a product is on the market or is widely used guarantees that it isn't harmful, either to ourselves or those around us. Many, many products may, in fact, be deadly, but tend to kill slowly, by contributing to cancer, heart disease, or other illness.This story saddens me deeply, in part because it highlights the lack of progress we seem to be making on this vital issue. I can, however, think of at least one way in which things have improved. It's much easier than it used to be to determine the safety of a product by using websites such as EWG (Environmental Working Group) or by simply doing an internet search. The caveat, however, is that sites are only helpful if people use them. We have to care enough to look for the information, and when we have the information, we have to act on it, by voting with our dollars, purchasing the kind of products we want to see more of on our store shelves.This is what I wrote in my post about the boys. It still reflects my thoughts. "If anything is going to change, I suspect you and I are going to have to be part of changing it. I believe there are things worth dying for. Deodorant isn't one of them."

Wednesday, March 15, 2017

On this date three years ago, my husband's heart stopped
beating.He was in his 50s, seemingly
healthy and robust, and most people were genuinely shocked at his death.I didn't wake up that March morning believing
that my husband would die that day, but in a general sense I was less shocked
than many others seemed to be.That was
partly due to life experiences (my mother died when I was young, so I grew up
understanding the unpredictability of death) and partly due to understanding
some of his risk factors.

I'm going to mark this anniversary by writing about heart
disease and talking about some lesser known causes. At some point I'm going to talk about a risk
factor or two that I wish Dan would have taken more seriously. I imagine that
last sentence put some of you on edge. Believe me, I spent a lot of time
debating whether or not to write this post, but I decided to do so for multiple
reasons, including that I'd like to think that Dan would want me to.

Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the United
States. The Centers for Disease Controlnotes that it causes one out of every four American deaths. Risk factors listed by the CDC include high blood pressure, high cholesterol,
smoking, diabetes, excess weight, poor diet, physical inactivity, and excessive
alcohol use.I believe these are fairly
well known by the general population.There are many other risk factors, however, that are less understood.

This is by no means an exhaustive list, but some of the
lesser known contributors to heart disease include the following:

Air pollution - Air pollution is a broad term, but in
general, fine particulates in the air, such as from industrial and traffic
fumes, are associated with higher rates of heart disease. The American Heart Association reports research showing increases in death and hospitalizations when there are
higher rates of smog. ABC Newsreports on a study finding that being stuck in traffic more
than triples the risk of having a heart attack.

Non-stick chemicals - As I've noted many times, chemicals
in our consumer products are generally not tested for safety, so the health
effects often remain unknown. Some,
however, have been linked to heart disease, including a family of chemicals
used in products such as non-stick pans and stain resistant coatings. A 2012 study found
that people who had the highest rates of the chemical PFOA in their blood were
twice as likely to experience heart disease, heart attack, or stroke as those
with the lowest levels. Because of the
bad press, PFOA is being replaced by other similar chemicals, but many health
experts warn that there is no reason to believe that the newer versions are any
less problematic.

Mold and other toxins found in water damaged buildings -
Water damaged buildings, or those with high indoor humidity levels, tend to be
breeding grounds for a multitude of
organisms, including a wide variety of fungi and bacteria. Exposure can lead to chronic inflammation, which can contribute to heart disease. A study in the Internet Journal of Toxicologyfound an association between exposure to molds in damp
buildings and high cholesterol levels.

Sleep apnea - The American Heart Associationnotes that sleep apnea is associated with high blood
pressure, arrhythmia, stroke, and heart failure. I'm almost certain that Dan
had sleep apnea, and I wish I had been successful at convincing him to get
tested.

Sugar consumption - This is the big one that I worried
about for years. Dr. Mark Hyman's
summary of the researchnotes that people with the highest sugar consumption have a
400% higher risk of experiencing a heart attack than those who consume the
least.Sugar (in all its various forms) is not just a problem because of its
"empty calories," adding to weight without contributing nutrition,
but because it is inflammatory and dangerous in and of itself.

Americans eat a lot of sugar, and the amount continues to
climb. A Huffington Post articlereports that the American Heart Association recommends that women cap their
consumption at six teaspoons a day and men at nine, but that the average American
consumes 30 teaspoons daily. There are a number of reasons for this. One is simply that American food
manufacturers sweeten almost everything. I remember returning to the United States after living overseas and
being astonished to find sugar in canned kidney beans. Dr. Hyman notes, "Most of us don’t know that a serving of tomato sauce
has more sugar than a serving of Oreo cookies, or that fruit yogurt has more
sugar than a Coke, or that most breakfast cereals — even those made with whole
grain — are 75% sugar. That’s not breakfast, it’s dessert!"

Americans also eat a lot of sugar because we're addicted to
it. I don't use that term lightly. Sugar
affects the same reward centers of the brain that other drugs do, and produces
tolerance in the same manner. People find themselves needing more and more of
it to satisfy their sweet tooth and may experience withdrawal symptoms when
they don't consume it at regular intervals. To quote Dr. Hyman again, " Recent and mounting scientific evidence
clearly proves that sugar — and flour, which raises blood sugar even more than
table sugar — is biologically addictive. In fact, it’s as much as eight times
more addictive than cocaine." A 2007 rodent studyreported that 94% of the animals chose
sugar (or an artificial sweetener) over cocaine when given the choice.

Drug abuse is a serious and growing personal and societal problem that I don't want to trivialize in any way. An Associated Press articlereports that almost 13,000 people died of a heroin overdose in 2015 and prescription painkillers killed over 17,500 people. A 2015 LA Times story reports another serious statistic: sugary drinks are linked to 25,000 deaths in the United States each year.

It seems likely that many, if not most Americans are
addicted to sugar to some degree. I
believe I was, until my health forced me to radically change my diet. I believe Dan was. We talked about it some through the years,
and he never quite denied it, but he never quite addressed it, either. About a year before he died, he developed a persistent itchy rash that doctors had trouble diagnosing. At some point I sent him an article which suggested
giving up sugar for two weeks in the case of mystery skin ailments. Not long afterwards, he remarked to me that
he had decided that he wouldn't cut sugar out completely, but that maybe he
would try to cut down.

I remember that conversation clearly. Dan was itchy and miserable, but not fully willing, for a a brief two weeks, to trade sugar for the possibility of
relief. The basic definition of addiction is continuing to engage in a behavior
despite negative consequences, and I remember feeling a wave of deep sadness and thinking, "This is a strong addiction. It could kill
him." I thought there was a good possibility that his heart would cause him major problems some day, but I didn't know how soon the
day would come. I think my vague thought
of what might happen was that he might have a heart attack in his 60s, and
that, if we were lucky, he would live through it and then maybe get serious
about changing his diet.

Obviously, I don't know that sugar consumption had anything
to do with Dan's sudden death. He had
plenty of other risk factors, including genetic ones, and had a period of high
work stress in the time period before he died, which could well have been the
final straw. I'm also certainly not unaware that my own health limitations added a significant degree of stress to Dan's life. (On the flip side, I think my need to live a low-toxicity life was protective for him in some ways, as well.) I can't point to sugar and say that I know it killed my husband, but the research is clear that it is, in fact, a killer.

I'm very sensitive to "blame the victim" messages and absolutely don't want this to come across that way. This isn't blaming, but warning. It's remembering the events of this day three years
ago and deeply and sincerely wanting to spare other people a similar
experience. Sometimes people take things more seriously when they know people
who have been affected, which is my sole motivation for sharing personal stories.

As I was debating whether or not to write this post, I ran
across Leviticus 5:1, which says "If
you are called to testify about something you have seen or that you know about,
it is sinful to refuse to testify." Yes, it's Old Testament and no, it wasn't written about blog posts, but
it convinced me. What I can offer the
world these days is limited, but I can testify about things I have seen and
know about.

I imagine I've made a lot of people mad by this point. To those who are mad because they loved Dan
and are angry that I wrote some negative things about him, I'll simply say that
I loved him, too, and miss him greatly. I've cried every day this month so far. I'll also remind you that I wrote a very different sort of postabout him three years ago.

To those who are mad because in addition to harping about chemicals, I'm now harping about a very prevalent food choice which is a source of comfort and pleasure, I'll simply say that I get it. Those of us who became addicted to sugar were
simply eating the standard American diet or found ourselves eating more sugar because
we were avoiding fat and dietary cholesterol like the experts recommended. The sugar industry manipulated studies and public policy just like the chemical industry does today. It's easy to understand
how we ended up in this place, but now that we're here, it's time to accept
that there are real consequences.

I write because I care about you. Whether I know you personally or not, you
matter to me simply because you've taken the time to read this post. I know other people care about you, too, and
we all want your heart to keep beating for a very long time.

Monday, March 6, 2017

My health has kept me from attending church for more than a
decade and a half now. Over that time I unfortunately haven’t seen much
progress in churches addressing toxicity issues. One way in which things have improved,
however, is that a greater number of churches are now streaming their services,
which, although it certainly isn’t a substitute for attending in person, is a
great blessing for those of us who can’t access corporate worship services otherwise.
There are enough churches webcasting on Sunday mornings these days that I thought
it might be helpful, as someone who watches regularly, to give a bit of
feedback on what I most appreciate.

The best place to begin this list is with a genuine expression
of gratitude to all churches who’ve made the decision to stream their services
and all the individuals who make it happen from week to week. It’s very much
appreciated. Online sermon archives are helpful and good, but I personally find
the ability to watch a live service exponentially more emotionally satisfying. I
feel less excluded and more an actual part of the congregation. When I was able
to watch the same church my family members attended, we shared a common experience,
at least to a degree, and were able to discuss the service over lunch. Thank
you for the effort, webcasting churches everywhere. That said, here are some
suggestions for optimizing the experience.

1. Identify your audience. Who are you hoping to serve? Is the stream primarily for regular church
members who are unable to attend now and then? Is it for people checking out your church before visiting in
person? How about folks outside of your
geographic location? Your answer to
these questions will determine how you handle other issues.

2. If the stream is for people other than church members, make it as
easy as possible for them to know that you webcast your services and
when and how to access them. I personally haven’t found any sort of central
database, at least for the geographical areas I’ve searched. It would be
helpful for denominational and interfaith organizations to compile and post
that information.

In my quest to digitally visit as many churches as possible
in my new geographical area, I’ve spent much more time than anticipated simply
trying to identify my options. A simple google search for churches in my city
that stream their services yielded a handful of helpful results and a lot of unhelpful
ones. I also had mixed results searching the Livestream and Ustream sites. There
were many dead links, but one church provided their new streaming address,
which was helpful. A surprising number of churches didn’t provide their name
anywhere in the video description. Some gave initials, which was at least a
clue. I know the search results were incomplete, because I’ve watched services
from at least one church on Livestream that didn’t appear in the results list. I’m
guessing the church didn’t include the city name in their description.

Searching YouTube's "live" page wasn't very successful, and if there's currently a way to search for churches that use Facebook Live to stream their services, I didn't discover it. I
was also unable to search the sites of Streamspot, Sunday Streams,
ChurchStreaming, or Churchvu.

All that said, since there doesn’t seem to be any sort of
comprehensive database, I suggest you make the information about streaming very
clear on your website and/or Facebook page. (I’ve been surprised at how many
churches apparently still don’t have either one of those things, but I’m
assuming that if they don’t, they aren’t streaming, either.) If you don’t stream every service, clearly
indicate which ones are going to be available. If you want to make things
easier for online visitors outside your geographical area, it’s helpful to note
what time zone you’re in. Sometimes a webcast works better in one browser than
another, or doesn’t work well on a mobile device, which is also helpful for
potential watchers to know.

3. Monitor the feed to make sure it works consistently and have
someone available to address issues as they arise. Over my years of webcast
watching, I’ve spent a lot of time trying to decide whether, if a stream has
consistent problems, it’s better than nothing, or it’s better for that church
just not to try at all. I’ve never quite made up my mind. What I do know is
that my frustration level was often very, very high when trying to watch
services from a church with ongoing webcast issues. I often felt like Charlie
Brown. Charlie kept believing that Lucy would hold the football long enough for
him to kick it, despite her habit of yanking it away. I kept believing that the
webcast problems were fixed, but they kept recurring. During some of those
years, I had a way to communicate during the service that there were problems,
but most of the time I didn’t. For those of us who are mostly homebound,
watching a church service from home feels a bit like watching through a window
because the door to church is locked and we don’t have a key. When the webcast
stops working, it’s as if the curtains on the window close. The frustration level
is lower when we believe someone has noticed that the window is covered and is
working to open the curtains again.

4. If there are ongoing problems, look for patterns. I’ve
noticed some churches seem to consistently have problems streaming the music, but
not the sermon, and the pattern is reversed for other churches. Perhaps it
relates to bandwidth or interference as certain equipment is used. I’ve been
trying to watch services from one particular church here in town and have found
that there are almost always problems near the end of the sermon. I don’t know
why that is, but it’s difficult for me to relax when I tune in because I’m always
waiting for the moment when the feed will stop working.

5. Start streaming on time, or, better yet, a little bit before
the service actually starts. When I tune in at the projected start time and
nothing is happening, I never know whether the church no longer streams its
services, there are technical problems that day, or they’re just getting
started late. I don’t know whether to bail out and find another service to
watch or to stick with the one I’m attempting to access for a while. To
compound the problem, I’ve found that for some streaming programs, if I tune in
and nothing is happening, the video stream won’t automatically start on my end
when the church begins the webcast. It will still show no feed until I refresh
the page. That’s a very unfortunate system, especially for watchers who have no
way to know they need to keep refreshing if they want to know when the service
has actually begun.

6. If you have any interest in reaching people other than your
regular church members, don’t ask us to create an account and log in to simply
watch a Sunday service. It’s an unnecessary barrier and just doesn’t feel very
welcoming. This doesn’t appear to be a common situation, but I’ve encountered
it.

7. Give people who are considering visiting your church as much
information through your webcasts as possible. If you have both a traditional
and a contemporary service, for example, consider streaming both. Even if you
have multiple services that follow the same pattern, it’s helpful to stream
them all. This gives viewers options for choosing what best fits their
schedule, and provides other information as well. Hope springs eternal, and I
haven’t given up hope of being able to attend church in person someday. I find
it helpful when the camera pans out and I can see where I might be able to sit
and have potentially clean air. I also notice what people wear. Sometimes
people dress up more for one service than another, which often correlates with
more perfume use, a health and barrier issue for me. Other viewers may be
interested in things like how many children are in the service, or if the
aisles are wide enough for easy wheelchair access.

8. Make it easier for people watching at home to sing along
with the congregation by providing us with the song lyrics. The easiest way to
do that is to simply point the camera at the projector screens in the sanctuary
when lyrics are being projected. I’ve watched webcasts from churches who
project lyrics over the shots of the praise team, which is a good option for
churches with the capability. One church in town has consistently wonderful
music that always touches me deeply, but the camera tends to pan from the
worship leader to the choir to the praise team and only occasionally gives a
shot of the projector screens. I can worship with the congregation when I happen
to know the song, but am left simply watching when I don’t. I was spoiled for
many years by a worship leader husband who gave me a copy of all the music that
was going to be used in the service that day. It’s very odd for me, since his
death, to find myself in the position of not knowing many of the songs being
sung, but it’s safe to assume that most webcast watchers aren’t married to the
worship pastor and are in a similar position. For multiple reasons, I've often thought it would be helpful for churches to post their bulletins or order of service on their websites. This would be especially helpful for churches that don't provide song lyrics during the webcast, because if I know what songs are going to be sung, I can look up the lyrics online.

9. It’s nice to be acknowledged. I know one pastor (my
brother-in-law actually) who walks up to the camera at the end of the service
and talks directly to those of us watching, telling us he’s glad we were able
to join the congregation that day. I love that. It’s a small gesture that means
a lot.

Again, many thanks to all churches who stream their services.
Those of us watching at home certainly don’t expect perfection, and we know
this is relatively new technology that requires some learning and
experimentation. My suggestions are simply meant to spur thought and point out
some things you might not have considered. May your efforts bear much fruit
for the kingdom of God.

Monday, January 23, 2017

Moving is never an easy process, but for those who are
significantly limited by toxic illness, the challenges are magnified
exponentially. How do you even begin to build a life when you’re shut out of
most public places? How do you meet
people? How do you find your tribe, your
support, your place of service and belonging?

My goal has been to get my construction project completed,
and then to turn my attention to trying to answer those questions. One thing I’ve
been doing already, however, is watching as many webcasts as possible from
churches in the area. I need the spiritual nourishment, of course, but I’m also
trying to get a feel for what the church options are on the remote chance that
I can somehow find a way to be connected to one.

This blog post is prompted by a survey I took for an area
church a couple of weeks ago (which was open to guests and to people watching
online) and by the sermon I heard yesterday from another. The theme of both was
connection, and why people aren’t as connected to the church as the leaders
would like them to be.

I don’t remember all the details of the survey. I do remember
that there were questions about church attendance, small group attendance, and
ministry participation. I seem to remember that one or two questions had a
fill-in-the-blank type option, but most were multiple choice.

Completing the survey was exceptionally frustrating. Generally,
the questions were something like “How often do you do x or y, and if it’s not
very often, why not?” The possible
answers rarely fit my circumstances and I don’t remember a single answer that
acknowledged health limitations. The possibilities seemed to generally assume either
a lack of knowledge or a lack of desire.

By far the most frustrating question for me was about
participation in mission projects. None of the possible answers fit at all, so I
finally settled on the last option given: “I don’t know.” That’s a fairly blatant lie. Of course I know
why I don’t participate in mission projects. It’s because at some point in my
life, most probably after I had been appointed as a missionary, and while I was
studying at the Missionary Learning Center, I was infected with Lyme disease
and not diagnosed. It’s because I got sicker and sicker as I served overseas. It’s
because doctors didn’t take me seriously and the toxins overwhelmed my
genetically weak detoxification system to the point that I could eventually no
longer serve as a missionary, no longer enter most public places, including
churches, and no longer participate in mission projects without accommodation,
which people don’t generally seem willing to give. That’s why.

The sermon I heard yesterday, from a very different type of church,
was entirely about small groups. The preacher spent time talking about the
importance of Christian fellowship, then listed the reasons he imagined for
people not participating in small group ministries. The reasons he proposed included
being too busy, fearing vulnerability, and being unwilling to engage with
people different from ourselves. At one point he mentioned “getting in our own
way.” Again there was no acknowledgement
that some of us need some of you to make changes if we’re going to be able to study,
pray, and worship together.

I’m not sure I can explain what these sorts of messages,
which are constant, feel like to those of us who are shut out of the broader church
community. Maybe the spiritual and emotional hunger can be compared to the need
for physical nourishment. Imagine (or remember, if you’ve experienced it) not
having access to a steady source of food for years at a time. You’re constantly
thinking about and looking for options, and you spend a great deal of time and
energy focusing on how to feed yourself enough that you can stay upright
and not pass out. On a regular basis, while hunger pains knot your stomach and
you’re wondering where to find your next meal, well-fed people come and lecture
you about the importance of eating right. “Eating is very important,” they tell
you. “You should really eat more and not sabotage yourself.” They say you should come and eat with them,
but the door to the room that holds the food is locked, and although many
people appear to have a key, you don't. When you mention the problem, you’re
told that unlocking the door would be too difficult, or you’re simply ignored.

It’s hard to be locked out. It’s also hard to be implicitly
blamed for the inability to access longed-for resources. Reading and hearing
church and small group slogans is often hard. When I hear something like “There’s
a place for you,” my automatic mental response is “I seriously doubt it.”

Won’t you consider letting us in? Won’t you consider keeping toxicity in mind
when making decisions about building materials, cleaning and pest control
methods, and personal care products? Please
unlock the door. We’re very hungry.

About Me

My family spent most of the 1990s serving in Peru as missionaries. During our time of service, my health deteriorated to the point that I could no longer continue to live there. Small exposures to a wide range of chemical triggers caused many symptoms, including debilitating pain. The condition is known as MCS (Multiple Chemical Sensitivity). I was also eventually diagnosed with Lyme Disease and mold poisoning.
Part of the missionary task is identifying unreached people groups. After returning to the states and becoming part of the MCS world, I came to see that people with MCS belong in that category. We’re largely unseen, but there are a significant and growing number of us and we’re shut out of most churches and Christian gatherings.
MCS has taught me a lot of lessons about the chemical hazards in common, everyday products and I’d like other people not to have to learn those lessons the hard way, like I did. I’d like Christians to take the issue seriously, both for their own sakes, and the sakes of others who are currently shut out of most churches because of product choices others make. This issue matters greatly to those of us with MCS. I think it matters to God, too.